MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405102381 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2024.2435335

Development of a direct competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (dc-ELISA) for the detection of scopolamine in wheat

2024· article· en· W4405102381 on OpenAlexaff
Gurmit Singh, Ligia Velasquez, Terence Koerner, Anne-Catherine Huett, Nathalie Gillard

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetection limitChemistryChromatographyScopolamineFood scienceWheat flourCoefficient of variationControl sampleBiologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:A competitive direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (dc-ELISA) was developed for the detection and quantification of scopolamine (SCO) in wheat flours and cereal samples (multigrain, oat and barley). The limit of quantification (IC20) of the established method was 6.00 ± 1.20 ng/g, with the limit of detection (IC10) being 2.4 ± 0.6 ng/g in wheat flour with a coefficient of variation (CV) less than 20%. The assay was highly specific to SCO and nor-scopolamine, with no cross-reactivity to other similar structures. In spiked wheat flours the recoveries ranged from 84% to 104% with CVs of less than 20% and the recovery from a Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme (FAPAS) buckwheat control sample was 118%. A comparison of spiked wheat flour and a FAPAS control sample showed similar results to those determined by classical LC-MS/MS methods. A small retail survey of wheat flours and cereal samples was conducted using this ELISA method and a LC-MS/MS method, which showed scopolamine was not detected in any of these survey samples by either method. This method is suitable for rapid quantitation of SCO in wheat flours and cereal samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207